The court ruled that when a dispute is essentially civil in nature and overlaps with criminal allegations, the criminal proceedings should be quashed to prevent abuse of the legal process.

ORDER :

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.

This petition is filed by the accused seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No.178/2024 for the offence punishable under sections 190, 318(4), 335, 336(3), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Facts leading to the case are as under:

Respondent No.2 lodged a written complaint alleging that petitioner No.16 purchased an extent of 4 acres 1¾ guntas under a registered sale deed dated 19.09.2024 from petitioners No.1 to 15, by including within it the complainant’s property measuring 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.201. Acting upon this complaint, the jurisdictional police registered a crime, alleging that the petitioners had committed the offences of cheating and forgery by incorporating, in the said sale deed, the land that had been purchased by the complainant’s mother in 1972 to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings on the ground that respondent No.2 has already instituted a comprehensive civil suit seeking declaration and injunction in O.S.No.740/2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contended that respondent No.2 has attempted to convert a dispute, which is essentially civil in nature, into a criminal prosecution, and therefore, the impugned proceedings are not maintainable. He further submitted that the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot co-exist on the same set of facts, a proposition which has been substantially dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club Ltd. v. Union of India , (2012) 8 SCC 680 .

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the complainant’s mother had purchased an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas under a registered sale deed dated 19.01.1974, and therefore, petitioners No.1 to 15 had no saleable interest in that portion of the land. It was contended that the petitioners, in collusion with petitioner No.16, fabricated and executed the sale deed with an intention to cheat and thereby usurp the property belonging to respondent No.2.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1, and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. I have also carefully perused the records.

6. On a perusal of the records, this Court finds that respondent No.2 has instituted a comprehensive civil suit in O.S.No.740/2024. It is considered appropriate to extract the reliefs sought in the said suit for ready reference. The prayers in the plaint are reproduced hereinbelow:

"a) Declare that, the Plaintiff is the absolute owner being in physical possession and enjoyment of the 'A' schedule property, measuring an extent of 1 Acre 20 Guntas, situated at Nandagudi Village, Nandagudi Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, by virtue of the Registered Sale Deed dated: 19.01.1974, registered as Document No.651/1972-73, Volume No. 1329, in Pages 60-61, Book-l, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Hoskote, in the name of the Plaintiff.

b) Declare that, the Sale Deed executed by the Defendant Nos. 1 to 16 in favour of the Defendant No.17 vide Registered Sale Deed dated: 04.09.2024, registered at the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Hoskote, vide Book-I, Document No. HSK-1-10925-2024-25, dated: 19.09.2024, in so far as Schedule 'A' property of the Plaintiff, measuring an extent of 1 Acres 20 Guntas, is not binding upon the Plaintiff's 'A' Schedule property.

c) Direct the Defendants not to interfere, dispossess, cause obstruction, alienate, encumber, create charge